Harvey Gone?

Remove this Banner Ad

Northalives said:
There is this real misconception that somehow, if your feet are not on the ground when you bump someone, then you are in deep s**t. That is a fallacy.

Whether your feet are on the ground or not has absolutely no baring on whether the bump/collision is within the laws of the game so I would suggest that people stop making a song and dance about whether or not the player bumping is off the ground.

In this Harvey case, he bumped a bloke who was miles away from the ball/the play and caused him to leave the ground with the blood rule. Last year, Jonas from Port Adelaide dished out a text book bump on an opponent but the trouble was that the opponent was miles away from the ball/the play and from memory, he was rubbed out for four games!

This tribunal fiasco is an incredible embarrassment and a blight on Aussie Rules Football.

To show just how ridiculous the rules of this great game have become, look no further than the ludicrous "play-on-to-advantage" law of the game. It is the only sport in the world that I can think of where the players adjudicate a law, that is, they can choose to play on or stop when a free kick has been awarded to their team. That's a disgrace!
Click to expand...

Umm...NRL? Soccer?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

AM said:
Short memory buddy. If you want someone who squeals like a banshee then look no further than Boomer. Ask Ryan Crowley. Ask Liam Picken. Ask Brent Macaffer..........
Click to expand...

So put them both in a room together and two pigs in an adjoining room then try and pick with room has the pigs. Might be difficult to pick giving the squealing that is emitted from both rooms.

Notwithstanding, justice clearly served by a common sense decision (which has been sadly lacking in recent times).
 
How the * can people not get the rule still.

Yes Harvey got him in the head, with about the force of a insect, which is why he got off.

Comparing it to Fyfe is stupid.
 
captainCOOL said:
How the **** can people not get the rule still.

Yes Harvey got him in the head, with about the force of a insect, which is why he got off.

Comparing it to Fyfe is stupid.
Click to expand...
Of course comparing it to Fyfe is stupid. Fyfe's was a genuine challenge in the act of play, Harvey's was a genuine snipe off the ball that they decided to ignore because he's played a lot of games.
 
captainCOOL said:
Snipe? Selwood didn't even look like he felt the little brush to his head. Get a grip
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, he didn't feel it so much that he didn't run straight up to the umpire to not complain about it.

Yes, it was a snipe. Boomer just wasn't very good at it.
 
Reginald Perrin said:
Oh yeah, he didn't feel it so much that he didn't run straight up to the umpire to not complain about it.

Yes, it was a snipe. Boomer just wasn't very good at it.
Click to expand...
He didn't run straight to the ump to complain. The ump called Selwood to go off with the blood rule, and Selwood, not surprisingly tee'd off at having to go off, mouthed off. Like players do the whole game-his just happened to be heard.
It wasn't a snipe by Boomer-it was just an off the ball bump. Not too forceful, not to malicious.
Whilst I don't think Fyfe deserved a suspension, the impact was clearly greater. Riscatelli was knocked to the ground by the force of it and couldn't get up for a mo.
 
captainCOOL said:
How the **** can people not get the rule still.

Yes Harvey got him in the head, with about the force of a insect, which is why he got off.

Comparing it to Fyfe is stupid.
Click to expand...
No matter what force there was a head clash and there was blood causing a player to leave the ground. Happy for Harvey that he's free to play but it's still a contradiction to the current rules.
 
Reginald Perrin said:
Of course comparing it to Fyfe is stupid. Fyfe's was a genuine challenge in the act of play, Harvey's was a genuine snipe off the ball that they decided to ignore because he's played a lot of games.
Click to expand...

the problem is FYFE ACCEPTED THE BAN! he should have appealed like boomer did. He didn't tough bickies.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

North would have been far more competitive if Boomer had of played last night.
 
kosifantutti said:
North would have been far more competitive if Boomer had of played last night.
Click to expand...

He was. How embarrassing for you to not know that piece of information. :$
 
Sydney Bloods said:
the problem is FYFE ACCEPTED THE BAN! he should have appealed like boomer did. He didn't tough bickies.
Click to expand...
Do you really think the result would have been any different?
 
Engimal said:
He was. How embarrassing for you to not know that piece of information. :$
Click to expand...
Oh how nice of you to join us Sheldon Cooper.;)

He's implying Boomer was so s**t last night, it's like he wasn't playing.
 
Sydney Bloods said:
Hell yes!
Click to expand...
I don't see it. They're not going to overturn the very first application of a new law. They had to twist the truth to the nth degree to get Boomer off, and that only happens when finals are at stake.
 
Reginald Perrin said:
I don't see it. They're not going to overturn the very first application of a new law. They had to twist the truth to the nth degree to get Boomer off, and that only happens when finals are at stake.
Click to expand...

The MRP are not the be all and end all they are often wrong.

North have the worst legal counsel in the league and boomer is perhaps the dumbest defendant, yet they got off.

It was worth challenging.
 
Sydney Bloods said:
The MRP are not the be all and end all they are often wrong.

North have the worst legal counsel in the league and boomer is perhaps the dumbest defendant, yet they got off.

It was worth challenging.
Click to expand...
Possibly, but you're clearly unfamiliar with our record on these matters. Joe Pesci is one of our senior consulting solicitors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

gocats88
Games Gone
Replies
9
Views
1K
Rob
Rob

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top